Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

No, the Church only upholds 3 of said Councils.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 03:06:28 PM by Schultz »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

No, the Church only upholds 3 of said Councils.

The Orthodox Catholic Church established by God has all of listed Councils. seven

Quote

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.

Yes, i am Christian in the normal and true sense because i am in Christian Church, established by God.

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

No, the Church only upholds 3 of said Councils.

The Orthodox Catholic Church established by God has all of listed Councils. seven

Quote

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.

Yes, i am Christian in the normal and true sense because i am in Christian Church, established by God.

No. The Council of Chalcedon was heretical.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

No, the Church only upholds 3 of said Councils.

The Orthodox Catholic Church established by God has all of listed Councils. seven

Quote

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.

Yes, i am Christian in the normal and true sense because i am in Christian Church, established by God.

No. The Council of Chalcedon was heretical.

It's a lie of Oriental churches. They are heretic schism. They know very well that Chalcedon Christology has never been nestorian, but they lie. It's a pure Orthodoxy.

It's a lie of Oriental churches. They are heretic schism. They know very well that Chalcedon Christology has never been nestorian, but they lie. It's a pure Orthodoxy.

Welcome to the forum, Russian.

One of the nice things about OC.net is that Eastern Orthodox Christians (EO's) and Oriental Orthodox Christians (OO's) do get to dialogue here. Since you are pretty new here, you probably haven't had a chance to read through a lot of the older threads that discuss Chalcedon, much less the nastier threads which argue about it in the private forum. We reserve arguments and heated discussions about Chalcedon for a private forum we have, and it is my guess that if this thread gets any more heated it will probably end up there.

I think it is regrettable that Deusveritasest hijacked the other thread, and his style was a bit confrontational, but now that the subject has come up I just want to give you a little information and background to help you understand where the OO's are coming from.

We reject Chalcedon because of our perception that certain language used, as well as certain actions taken at the council, could be read in a heretical Theodorean (Nestorian) manner. Among other things, we object to certain language in the Tome of Leo, as well as the exoneration of some heretical theologians during the council.

There were also, however, certain things said and done at the council which could be read in an Orthodox, Cyrillian, manner, such as the anathema against Nestorius.

Basically, the council can be, and has been, interpreted both ways.

This isn't a lie. Below are just two examples of Chalcedon and Pope Leo being spoken of in an approving manner by the Church of the East, which still venerates Nestorius:

1. From the website Nestorian.org:

Quote

3. In 451, however, the new emperor Marcian summoned a new council which met at Chalcedon.

a. The Council of Chalcedon condemned Eutyches and monophysitism.

b. It accepted the teachings of Pope Leo I, who said that Christ had two natures, human and divine. (How was this different from Nestorianism?)

2. From Chapter 6 of the Catechism of the Assyrian Church of the East:

Quote

5) How many Ecumenical Councils do we recognize?

There were two truly Ecumenical Councils, 1) the Council of Nicea; and, 2) The Council of Constantinople; and, possibly three, the Council of Chalcedon, because the Church in the West (the Roman Byzantine Empire) returned to the Orthodox Faith, embracing two natures in Christ

At the time of the council, and for some time afterward, there were some Chalcedonians--including some in leadership positions--who gave it a Theodorean interpretation. Some, Chalcedonians, however, such as the Scythian Monks, gave it an Orthodox interpretation. It was because of this that your Fifth Council was held, and at that council the possibility of a Theodorean interpretation was eliminated. It is because of your Fifth Council that many theologians now say the EO's and OO's now have the same Christology.

Of course this has all been discussed and argued over extensively here at OC.net. Like I said, the more polemical discussions go in a private forum. If you are interested in that sort of thing, you can pm Fr. Chris and ask him for admission there.

Anyway, I hope I gave you some idea of where we are coming from so you don't think we are just a bunch of liars.

Again, welcome to the forum. I look forward to your posts, and to discussing many different kinds of topics with you.

I know nothing of your background and so would not wish to comment at all on whether or not you were an apostate from any community.

But it is only your opinion that you are Orthodox, just as it is my opinion that I am Orthodox.

That being so you have no more independent authority to consider deusveritasest an apostate, than he might have to consider you an heretic. He is, at 'best', an apostate according to your opinion. He is not according to mine.

Since both communities consider themselves Orthodox, and THE Church, there is little value in simply stating 'I am Orthodox' as if expecting the other to say 'Oh, I am so sorry, I had not realised I was wrong all along'. That being so it seems best to either not correspond with those of the other community at all, or try and jog along together and understand each other better, which is what many here do try and do.

That being so you have no more independent authority to consider deusveritasest an apostate, than he might have to consider you an heretic. He is, at 'best', an apostate according to your opinion. He is not according to mine.

I'm not merely referring to deusveritasest, but to the atheists, agnostics, and Roman Catholics who hijacked the thread.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Agreed. And apostates are allowed to hijack this thread to polemicize for their new faiths.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Since I'm not an apostate from Orthodoxy, I'm straining to see your point.

How odd that when you quoted my earlier post (reply #10,) the links were left out! Aren't you able to see them? I have a Mac. Maybe you have a pc and you can't see them for that reason? I never understood these things about different computers and how they work.

Are people with pc's not able to read them? I know that Mac's and pc's are not "compatible." Does that mean you can't read things I link? Can others see those links in reply 10, and click onto them?

Anyway, if you had been able to click onto the two links I had in reply #10, you would have seen that I linked to a thread that you and some other EO's hijacked, and the thread in the private forum where I had to put all those posts that were polemical, insulting, off topic, and, in some cases, too weird to understand. That was what I meant by the pot calling the kettle black: You were complaining about DVE hijacking a thread, when you will sometimes hijack threads in the OO section.

Not that you are the only one. This sort of thing is not too uncommon in the OO section. My personal favorite was the thread about the apparition in Egypt almost a year ago.

The Copts had been suffering particularly horrible persecution and mob violence at the hands of Muslim extremists over there, when suddenly in December the Mother of God began to appear above a church. The thread linked above (if you can click onto it) was a discussion among the OO's about this wonderful miracle. If I recall correctly, about three or four EO's came into that thread to inform us that the apparition could not possibly be the Mother of God, since she would never appear to Non-Chalcedonians. This was one of those holiday-time threads that just filled you with that warm Christmassy feeling.

Anyway, I hope I explained myself better this time. I'm sorry you couldn't see or click onto the links back when I originally made that post.

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

No, the Church only upholds 3 of said Councils.

The Orthodox Catholic Church established by God has all of listed Councils. seven

Quote

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.

Yes, i am Christian in the normal and true sense because i am in Christian Church, established by God.

No. The Council of Chalcedon was heretical.

It's a lie of Oriental churches. They are heretic schism. They know very well that Chalcedon Christology has never been nestorian, but they lie. It's a pure Orthodoxy.

LOL. It's not a lie. We have been honestly convinced that Chalcedon compromised with Nestorianism. You can say that we are mistaken (which I will debate), but we are certainly not liars.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

No, the Church only upholds 3 of said Councils.

The Orthodox Catholic Church established by God has all of listed Councils. seven

Quote

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.

Yes, i am Christian in the normal and true sense because i am in Christian Church, established by God.

No. The Council of Chalcedon was heretical.

It's a lie of Oriental churches. They are heretic schism. They know very well that Chalcedon Christology has never been nestorian, but they lie. It's a pure Orthodoxy.

LOL. It's not a lie. We have been honestly convinced that Chalcedon compromised with Nestorianism. You can say that we are mistaken (which I will debate), but we are certainly not liars.

What about the 5th Ecumenical Council then? (Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD)

The issue is, I think, Azurestone, that we are being asked to accept what appears to us to be a revisionist history of Chalcedon, while we reject what it actually was, according to our understanding.

Many EO DO insist that we must accept the EO view of Chalcedon. They are NOT satisfied that we have the same substance of faith, they insist that we must have the same understanding of history. This is not possible. But since we do seem to have the same faith it does seem an unnecessary obstacle.

Church has only 7 Ecumenical Councils.(in 325, 381, 431, 451, 553, 680-681, 787 AD they were held) If somebody wants to be a Christian, he must admit them. If he doesn't want to be a Christian, he can choose any other number. It's more simple, than you can imagine

No, the Church only upholds 3 of said Councils.

The Orthodox Catholic Church established by God has all of listed Councils. seven

Quote

Indeed, those outside the Church are not Christian in the same sense that those in the Church are.

Yes, i am Christian in the normal and true sense because i am in Christian Church, established by God.

No. The Council of Chalcedon was heretical.

It's a lie of Oriental churches. They are heretic schism. They know very well that Chalcedon Christology has never been nestorian, but they lie. It's a pure Orthodoxy.

LOL. It's not a lie. We have been honestly convinced that Chalcedon compromised with Nestorianism. You can say that we are mistaken (which I will debate), but we are certainly not liars.

What are your thoughts about what this rogue Prespyterian said about Chalcedon on my friend's youtube post?

Now, he is a little confused for he thinks we(EO) are Eutychian, but he did home in on something I thought was interesting. This is what he said:Quote:"That is what it means to hypostatize something. It becomes one singular ontological reality. You say you deny Eutychus but accept hypostatic﻿ union. Distinguish one nature from one singular ontological reality."

This person keeps bugging me and David on our blogs and youtube channels. He defends Nestorius and his own unique Gordan Clark Christian Platonistic view of two persons. But he essentially thinks we(EO) are Eutychian. Like most of the west, he doesn't like Saint Cyril and he calls us names because of it. He feels that Chalcedon was too Cyrillian.

But what I thought was interesting was the fact that he knew that our "hypostatic union" was the same as your "one nature". Now he is confused for we both are not Eutychian. But he was able to see that we were essentially saying the samething as Saint Cyril.....eventhough we didn't use the term "one nature".

And so it's not really about the terms being used. It's about what we mean by those terms.

But in regards to the compromise....we didn't compromise with Nestorius and his followers. We compromised with Saint Leo and his tome. And that was only in the sense of it agreeing with Saint Cyril. And so we are suppose to interpret the tome in light of Saint Cyril.......not the other way around.

Any confusion in that area was finally settled in the 5th council.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 02:04:49 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

The OO's view that council as something that corrected Chalcedon. We are OK with the Christology expressed there.

The EO's view it as confirming an Orthodox view of Chalcedon that already existed.

That's my point. If the 5th EC clarified any confusion, why are we still arguing about the 4th EC? We live today, not in snapshots of disagreement.

Because if Chalcedon was indeed heretical it confirms that the OO are the Church and the Byzantines are outside the Church, as only the Orientals always loyally maintained the pure orthodox Christology.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

The Council of Chalcedon, Fourth Ecumenical Council, stated that Christ has two natures(100% of Divine and 100% of Human) in one person.

Confession of Chalcedon:"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως - in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

Nestorianism emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius even rejected the title of Virgin Mary as Theotokos.

We believe in one God, God the Father, the Almighty, Who created heaven and earth, and all things, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us, men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And on the third day He rose from the dead, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens; and sat at the right hand of His Father, and also He is coming again in His glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom has no end.

Yes, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who, with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke in the prophets. And in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age. Amen.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

The heretics Ibas and Theodoret both signed up to this confession, and we know that Nestorius considered the Tome of Leo to express his Christology.

Two natures, one person is the language of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

The council produced a definition using the language of St Cyril but this was rejected. The council heard Dioscorus using the language of St Cyril and were asked whether they agreed with him or with Leo who used the language of Theodore. They chose to reject the language of St Cyril.

Whether or not the majority accepted a Theodorean Christology or not, that was what remained permissible after Chalcedon. We know this because neither Ibas, who called Theodore the Doctor of the Church, not Theodoret, who wrote after Chalcedon that his Theodorean Christology had been accepted as the measure of Orthodoxy, were asked at Chalcedon to reject the teaching of Theodore. Neither were disciples of Nestorius, anathematising him was a red herring. The Bogey Man was always Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Until 700 AD Chalcedonians were still insisting that Chalcedon had canonised the Christology of Ibas, Theodoret and Theodore. These were not anti-Chalcedonians making such a claim, but those who were strict Chalcedonians.

"Two natures" at the time of Chalcedon means "two beings or identities". It is the language used by Theodore, Diodore, Ibas, Theodoret etc etc. This is why the Assyrian Church of the East could accept Chalcedon, and it is why Nestorius was able to accept the Tome of Leo.

This does not mean that this is the only interpretation of Chalcedon, but the Oriental Orthodox do require the Eastern Orthodox to accept that it is an interpretation which Chalcedonians DID hold at the time, and which had to be dealt with by another council. I think that it is necessary that the Eastern Orthodox accept that the condemnation of Chalcedon was reasonable, even if, according to the Eastern Orthodox pov, it was unnecessary.

There's more significance to that post than you may realize. Notice that Ephesus I offered no definition of the Faith. It was content simply to confirm the Nicene Creed as their Creed and to affirm the letter's of Saint Cyril as representing their faith. There was resistance to the idea of a new Creed at Chalcedon because of this trend. The OO never jumped on the bandwagon of offering any other Creed other than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

This does not mean that this is the only interpretation of Chalcedon, but the Oriental Orthodox do require the Eastern Orthodox to accept that it is an interpretation which Chalcedonians DID hold at the time, and which had to be dealt with by another council. I think that it is necessary that the Eastern Orthodox accept that the condemnation of Chalcedon was reasonable, even if, according to the Eastern Orthodox pov, it was unnecessary.

Why would it be acceptable to think that the condemnation of Chalcedon was unnecessary?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

We believe in one God, God the Father, the Almighty, Who created heaven and earth, and all things, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us, men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And on the third day He rose from the dead, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens; and sat at the right hand of His Father, and also He is coming again in His glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom has no end.

Yes, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who, with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke in the prophets. And in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age. Amen.

Yes, we too. I asked you about what christology do the orientals confess?

The heretics Ibas and Theodoret both signed up to this confession, and we know that Nestorius considered the Tome of Leo to express his Christology.

Two natures, one person is the language of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

The council produced a definition using the language of St Cyril but this was rejected. The council heard Dioscorus using the language of St Cyril and were asked whether they agreed with him or with Leo who used the language of Theodore. They chose to reject the language of St Cyril.

Whether or not the majority accepted a Theodorean Christology or not, that was what remained permissible after Chalcedon. We know this because neither Ibas, who called Theodore the Doctor of the Church, not Theodoret, who wrote after Chalcedon that his Theodorean Christology had been accepted as the measure of Orthodoxy, were asked at Chalcedon to reject the teaching of Theodore. Neither were disciples of Nestorius, anathematising him was a red herring. The Bogey Man was always Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Until 700 AD Chalcedonians were still insisting that Chalcedon had canonised the Christology of Ibas, Theodoret and Theodore. These were not anti-Chalcedonians making such a claim, but those who were strict Chalcedonians.

"Two natures" at the time of Chalcedon means "two beings or identities". It is the language used by Theodore, Diodore, Ibas, Theodoret etc etc. This is why the Assyrian Church of the East could accept Chalcedon, and it is why Nestorius was able to accept the Tome of Leo.

This does not mean that this is the only interpretation of Chalcedon, but the Oriental Orthodox do require the Eastern Orthodox to accept that it is an interpretation which Chalcedonians DID hold at the time, and which had to be dealt with by another council. I think that it is necessary that the Eastern Orthodox accept that the condemnation of Chalcedon was reasonable, even if, according to the Eastern Orthodox pov, it was unnecessary.

Can you tell me what christology do the Oriental churches confess? That doesn't matter, what language can be used for the Orthodox doctrine (Where is "one essence with the Father" term from?), if it can be transformed and adapted for the Orthodox doctrine.

We have always confessed that Christ is the Word of God Incarnate, and is fully and perfectly God and fully and perfectly human, without confusion, mixture, division or separation. This has been our firm belief since the beginning, following our Father St Cyril, and it is because of this belief that we rejected Chalcedon.

We have always confessed that Christ is the Word of God Incarnate, and is fully and perfectly God and fully and perfectly human, without confusion, mixture, division or separation. This has been our firm belief since the beginning, following our Father St Cyril, and it is because of this belief that we rejected Chalcedon.

So, what is the big difference between this christology and the Chalcedon Council christology?I know, that "In 2001, certain theologians of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox traditions concluded that they had always believed in the same Christology, but differed over how this was to be formulated. This conclusion became the basis for healing the schism between them, and the two groups jointly issued a "Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration." So, The Orthodox Catholic Church has always confessed true Christology. And you are only a split against the true Orthodox Catholic Church.

If you mean what is the difference between modern EO Christology and OO Christology, not usually so much. If you mean what is the difference between Chalcedon and our Christology, much more since we believe that Chalcedon allowed the Theodorean Christology back into the Church.

Ibas was condemned as a Theodorean heretic in 449 and received as Orthodox at Chalcedon. His letter was read out at Chalcedon and described as Orthodox, but the same letter was read out at Constantinople 553 and described as blasphemous. Was it Orthodox or blasphemous? Was Chalcedon right, or Constantinople? Why were the actions taken against Ibas overturned at Chalcedon unless the Christology of Ibas the notorious supporter of Theodore was not being accepted? Theodoret was condemned in 449 and then received back at Chalcedon, and then condemned again in 553. Neither Ibas nor Theodoret were asked to accept the Christology of St Cyril, indeed their Christology was not discussed at all at Chalcedon, they were just accepted back because they condemned Nestorius. We know that this meant nothing to them.

So, while many EO insist that Chalcedon must be accepted as an ecumenical council. We are not able to do that because we do not believe it is. But this does not change the substance of our Christology.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion that we are only a split from the true Orthodox Catholic Church. But of course our opinion is that we ourselves are and have always been the true Orthodox Catholic Church from which the EO have in some measure departed.